05-10-2024Quote:
Claiming his opinion is correct and seeking more of it is like commending the paper boy's smarts for delivering a paper that has the latest stock market increase and asking his advise on future investing because of it.
What now ?
Well, from what I've heard, the parties will be meeting with judge Lane prior to the 1PM Sept. 4 hearing at his request (perhaps that very morning). WHAT he is going to say to all the parties is not yet known, but it's my understanding that many want a concensual agreement and don't want this apple cart to be tipped over (you rarely get all your apples back when that happens). AMR has refiled their 1113 with "corrections" and is requesting the judge to re-rule on the motion. However, it's my understanding (but I could be wrong) that once an 1113 is denied (regardless of the reasoning), that the 1113 "process" must restart as opposed to being "continued", that being a new 14-21 day expedited process. An expedited process would allow the reintroduction of any new information to compare against the competition to ensure what is demanded is necessary and doesn't produce an unfair competitive advantage and in fact, the APA sent AMR a letter requesting just such information of their latest assessment of all the recent developments both within AMR and their plan, what's occuring at the competition relating to pilot compensation and financial evaluations of their demands in order to ensure what is being demanded is in fact, necessary for successful reorganization and all parties are being treated fairly and equitably.
AMR has requested the court to dismiss any such re-starting of the process and wants an immeadiate ruling using all past testimony and evidence as it being already argued and ruled upon. Desireable, yes, but from what I understand, that is not what the process provides for once an 1113 is rejected. To me, that would seem to imply the debtor is now re-writing bankruptcy law to their advantage. At any rate, I'd expect little likelyhood of any bombshells until Sept. 4, any meetings, the hearing and what judge Lane does.
Eagle,Originally Posted by eaglefly
Claiming his opinion is correct and seeking more of it is like commending the paper boy's smarts for delivering a paper that has the latest stock market increase and asking his advise on future investing because of it.
What now ?
Well, from what I've heard, the parties will be meeting with judge Lane prior to the 1PM Sept. 4 hearing at his request (perhaps that very morning). WHAT he is going to say to all the parties is not yet known, but it's my understanding that many want a concensual agreement and don't want this apple cart to be tipped over (you rarely get all your apples back when that happens). AMR has refiled their 1113 with "corrections" and is requesting the judge to re-rule on the motion. However, it's my understanding (but I could be wrong) that once an 1113 is denied (regardless of the reasoning), that the 1113 "process" must restart as opposed to being "continued", that being a new 14-21 day expedited process. An expedited process would allow the reintroduction of any new information to compare against the competition to ensure what is demanded is necessary and doesn't produce an unfair competitive advantage and in fact, the APA sent AMR a letter requesting just such information of their latest assessment of all the recent developments both within AMR and their plan, what's occuring at the competition relating to pilot compensation and financial evaluations of their demands in order to ensure what is being demanded is in fact, necessary for successful reorganization and all parties are being treated fairly and equitably.
AMR has requested the court to dismiss any such re-starting of the process and wants an immeadiate ruling using all past testimony and evidence as it being already argued and ruled upon. Desireable, yes, but from what I understand, that is not what the process provides for once an 1113 is rejected. To me, that would seem to imply the debtor is now re-writing bankruptcy law to their advantage. At any rate, I'd expect little likelyhood of any bombshells until Sept. 4, any meetings, the hearing and what judge Lane does.
Your rebuttal shows a good sense of humor and Judges do put pressure on parties to reach a consensual agreement to avoid their having to make a directive ruling. You could very well be right.
Sailing scored a couple of points on an internal debate which has continually simmered over on the Delta property as to the wisdom scope negotiations during our bankruptcy. Some advocated taking a harder line, as American has done. Sailing will point out that thus far American's direction has been less successful than that taken by the Delta MEC.
We will all be watching and hoping this turns out well for the pilots.
